From today's "Studio Briefing" http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/

Sony said Tuesday that it's ready to begin installing its SXRD high-definition digital projectors in theaters across the country. The system boasts 8.8 million pixels, or four times the resolution of systems already in place in U.S. theaters. The 4K systems have recently been tested in 12 Landmark Theater screens. Now, Sony says, it is ready to begin turning out 100 projectors a month beginning in December. Sony said it had received commitments from four major studios to release films on digital files in the 4K format.

I love it!

And they said "Who needs a 4k camera?"

Just think, in 1 year there will be 1,200 of these units out there.

Is there a list of the theaters that will get them when? I haven't been to a theater in over 2 years because my HD DLP and sound system are so superior. I long to experience an extreme quality big screen.

Know this theater operators: I will gladly pay $3 to $5 more per ticket for the ability to enjoy a jitter-free and properly and uniformly focused viewing experience. Further I expect to go to such a theater once a month, rather than never.

I can't wait, so tell me where and when!

-Tom

Is there a list of the theaters that will get them when? I haven't been to a theater in over 2 years because my HD DLP and sound system are so superior. I long to experience an extreme quality big screen.

Know this theater operators: I will gladly pay $3 to $5 more per ticket for the ability to enjoy a jitter-free and properly and uniformly focused viewing experience. Further I expect to go to such a theater once a month, rather than never.

I can't wait, so tell me where and when!

-Tom

I fully expect to pay 'less' since they don't have to deal with film and transport cost and poorly trained projectionists. Thats they way to get me back to the theater.

I wouldn't pay more either.
The cost for the theatre is now already very expensive.
You already have home cinemas and dvd's and home projectors...
And yes, seeing a movie in the theatre is still a complete different experience, an experience I really love, but if it gets more expensive, I could justify it anymore for a 2 hour movie, when I can buy the movie at a medium that I can watch over and over again.

Although I think studios should get into financing for those projectors too, and not only the theatres themselves, because the studio is making some profit on it (not having to pay all those 35 mm copys)

Went to see "The Prestige", first movie I've seen in maybe a year thanks to the boors who go to movies these days and the horrific run up in ticket prices (...BTW, the movie was excellent).

Considering spectacle movies like Batman Begins, King Kong and Superman cost over $200M to produce I think spending $8.50 is a bargain. Especially when compared to going to the theater or sporting events.

I wouldn't pay more either.
The cost for the theatre is now already very expensive.
You already have home cinemas and dvd's and home projectors...
And yes, seeing a movie in the theatre is still a complete different experience, an experience I really love, but if it gets more expensive, I could justify it anymore for a 2 hour movie, when I can buy the movie at a medium that I can watch over and over again.

Although I think studios should get into financing for those projectors too, and not only the theatres themselves, because the studio is making some profit on it (not having to pay all those 35 mm copys)

The financial model that is being used is that the theaters will pay a "virtual print fee" to various groups that are financing the projectors so that the capital cost (plus profit) can be recovered. This is, so far, the only model that has gained the acceptance of the studios and the exhibitors. This allows for the conversation to digital projection without theaters having to pay billions of dollars upfront (and at $100,000+ per screen, the total capital cost does quickly reach $ billions). The studios will derive cost savings by not having to make film prints. Everybody wins.

certainly wouldn't pay more for a ticket. It's nice to see movies when they come out, but still... The sound I have at home is FAR better than anything in a theater, and even at DVD resolution, the picture is usually better too. Sure 4k will look fantastic, but when I go to see a movie in a theater, it's because I want to see that movie right then, not because I'd rather watch it in 4K. 4K will definitely even-out the quality of the cinema experience, but it definitely should NOT raise prices, especially when theaters are fighting to sell tickets as it is.

I won't complain if the picture improves, but it's been a long time since I've been to a theater where the picture was bad enough to distract from the film. Now, I HAVE been to a lot of films where the content was bad enough to forget the story and just watch the beautiful craftsmanship of the crew.

I wouldn't pay more either.
The cost for the theatre is now already very expensive.
You already have home cinemas and dvd's and home projectors...
And yes, seeing a movie in the theatre is still a complete different experience, an experience I really love, but if it gets more expensive, I could justify it anymore for a 2 hour movie, when I can buy the movie at a medium that I can watch over and over again.

Although I think studios should get into financing for those projectors too, and not only the theatres themselves, because the studio is making some profit on it (not having to pay all those 35 mm copys)

The financial model that is being used for the roll-out of digital cinema is that the studios will pay a "virtual print fee" to various groups that are financing the projectors (say, $2,000 per movie release per theater). Exhibitors will also pay part of the capital cost of the projection systems too (I think it's something like 20% upfront). This is, so far, the only model that has gained the acceptance of the studios and exhibitors. This allows for the conversion to digital projection without the studios or theater owners having to pay hundreds of millions of dollars upfront. The studios will derive cost savings by not having to make film prints, and eventually the virtual print fee will be substantially reduced or eliminated as the projector financing is paid off. Of course, by then it'll be time to buy new projection systems!

It should be noted that Christie is currently building 300 2K projectors a month, so the momentum is starting to build.

Considering spectacle movies like Batman Begins, King Kong and Superman cost over $200M to produce I think spending $8.50 is a bargain. Especially when compared to going to the theater or sporting events.

I won't even pretend to understand the financial complexities of film marketing, but I do know this... there hasn't been a "successful" movie made in Hollywood yet. They all "lose" money, right? Nudge, nudge.

The sound I have at home is FAR better than anything in a theater, and even at DVD resolution, the picture is usually better too.

Interesting...the system I have is pretty damn smokin', but I can't say that it beats the look and sound I'm used to when I go to the movies. Indeed, I do live in Hollywood so I'm seeing theatrical projection as good as it gets (ah, the Arclight) but still. Without question I'm becoming "part of the problem" in that I don't tend to see as many movies in the theatre when it's so damn good at home, but I still consider it inferior to the real thing.

Sorry I missed you in LA Charles, I agree that high end theaters like the Arclight have no real rival in the regular consumer market. Maybe a couple Malibu screening rooms can come close but even then...

Expect the price to rise, not go down, at least at first. Many of the current projectors are already paid for or well on their way.

Also note that even most of the die-hard film lovers agree that the best way to VIEW a movie shot in 35mm is with digital projection.




ash =o)

tis true, I haven't yet found projection of that quality. Perhaps it's a "once you pop, you can't stop" sort of situation.

I don't think it will make a difference. When I go to the movies the picture is never in focus — ever. I don't expect fancy new hardware is going to change that.

I've seen a couple of digital projections (including full-length big Hollywood
features) in 1K, 2K and now 4K with RED and some other demos. I'll take
digital projection over film. Just today I saw 2 films in the cinema that were
just out 1 day. Both scratches & dust in them a couple of times, not to mention
the change-the-reel blip that I always see now that I know what it is.

Have to agree with the focus though. For some reason cinema's seem to
have a real problem focussing their projectors. Sheesh.

Have to agree with the focus though. For some reason cinema's seem to have a real problem focussing their projectors. Sheesh.
Yeah, really. You'd think they just have to set focus ONCE. The screen isn't moving backward or forward depending on the film...

And I also agree that digital projection of any source material is better than film projection.

Yeah, really. You'd think they just have to set focus ONCE. The screen isn't moving backward or forward depending on the film...


With all due respect, your comment illustrates the problem. These days the poorly trained projectionst/popcorn girl is taught that it's only necessary to focus the projector occasionally. We're lucky if the film gets focused at the beginning of the show, and even then focusing skills are terrible. The projector gate, the lens, and the film heats up over the course of 2 hours, causing the focus to shift. And the vibration of the projector will literally shake the lens out of focus over time. Film projectors are mechanical devices and need frequent refocusing and other adjustment. A movie that's sharply focused at the beginning of the show is frequently slightly out of focus by the end if the focus is not tweaked during the show. These days, I usually sit on a aisle so I can more easily go to complain about lousy focus which has become pervasive. You'd think that at a bare minimum they'd keep the film in focus. What's more important than that? The decline in the quality of exhibition standards in this regard is a real shame.

And digital projection has the potential for greater problems. Right now reliability is only 95% and the projectors and servers are new. What happens 2, 3, 4, 5 years down the road? Digital projection is great but it's no panacea.

Well, there were some attempts to establish certifications for projection, the way we've got for theater sound systems. For some reason, they never went very far. DCI is trying again with digital projection. Hopefully this time it'll stick, and we'll actually have some minimum standards.

I shudder at the thought of the color calibration horrors that await.

With all due respect, your comment illustrates the problem. These days the poorly trained projectionst/popcorn girl is taught that it's only necessary to focus the projector occasionally. We're lucky if the film gets focused at the beginning of the show, and even then focusing skills are terrible.

You're absolutely right. I think I didn't quite write what I was intending. I'm the first to complain when the movie starts, and it looks like I left my contact lenses at home. I was simply talking about the setting the projector at the top of the movie, which never seems to get done right. The focus will shift slightly during the movie, sure, but that doesn't bother me nearly as much as starting off completely blurry. That part will be fixed with digital projectors, because there's no moving parts, gate, vibration (well maybe some vibration), but nothing that will radically change sharpness. I'm really looking forward to that.

There will definitely be problems with digital projectors. Everything from burnt out lamps to a blue-screen-of-death crash. And it's gonna suck being the guinea pig audience members while they figure out all the isues with digital. But I'll take my chances with that if it means a print that looks as good as the digital movies projected in the Zigfield in NYC. That just puts conventional projectors to shame!

Hey,
what will be plugged into these new projectors? Presumably current HD tape won't cut it for 4k, so what will be the industry delivery material and its formats/codecs? Is this known?
Thanks,
John.

Hey,
what will be plugged into these new projectors? Presumably current HD tape won't cut it for 4k, so what will be the industry delivery material and its formats/codecs? Is this known?
Thanks,
John.
I think they're going to be transmitting content via satellite, if I'm not mistaken.

The Sony 4K projector needs to be outfitted with 4 dual-link HD-SDI input boards.
Each board will get a 2K quarter of the image from whatever can supply this.

If I remember correctly I think the idea was to either use (data) DVD's or
harddisks to deliver the content to the cinema.

Hey,
what will be plugged into these new projectors? Presumably current HD tape won't cut it for 4k, so what will be the industry delivery material and its formats/codecs? Is this known?
Thanks,
John.

At the moment, the movie, trailers, commercials, etc., for both 2K and 4K, are stored on a server connected to the projection system. They're testing live transmission via satellite and data lines to the theaters which will make live events possible. Live transmission of sporting events and concerts in 3D is in the advanced planning stages.

The standards and specs have been defined by the Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI) which was sponsored by the major studios in cooperation with the major equipment vendors and other motion picture industry stakeholders. The specs are available in a pdf download here: http://www.dcimovies.com/

Thanks for the link Greg. At first glance it all seems designed to keep the "mastering" process too difficult for anyone but expensive specialty vendors. I know this may suit the big distributors who care most about protecting their valuable assets, but it seems like yet another hurdle for the indies. Hopefully it will soon be just a "save as" in FCP ;-)

Blair S. Paulsen
RedOne #19

It's great to see a nice clean DLP image, but somehow, it's DIGITAL the way HD cameras are VIDEO...it's not film to my eye, not as soft and organic looking, I don't like the edges on DLP like high contrast areas....can't really put my finger on what the artifacts are I see..but I don't like them...

The artifacts you're seeing on a DLP are the gaps between the micro-mirrors. They can't but the mirrors together so when you look real close you can see the edges of the pixels. That's their biggest drawback. That said I've seen the Sony 4K up-close and personnel at a demo in Los Angeles and it is impressive. I walked right up to the screen, and at less than inches away still couldn't discern a pixel. These projectors use Liquid Crytal on Silicon (LCoS) in the same diamond shaping that they designed the new CMOS HDV camera. The biggest drawback to the Sony system is the limitation on it requiring 4 inputs to achieve the resolution (4 Dual link HDSDI or DVI inputs cut in quadrants) and brightness for large screen applications. 10K Lumens just doesn't cut it in a big theater. They say an 18K lumen version is on the way though.

Nice job Paul of bringing critical first person experience to this discussion. DLP, IMHO, has always been a poor knockoff of JVC's D-ILA tech which also has some fill factor and level stepping issues. The Sony LCoS tech, marketed as SXRD, looks like the current best solution, even passing the human visual threshold of pixel visibility from inches away. I am looking forward to using it as my "target" for final display. I have already ordered a Sony VPL-VW50 projector for color grading. It also suffers from limited lumens but as long as the suite is dark and the image no more than 100" diagonal it has a good chance of mimicing what the 4k projector puts out in terms of gamma, density, color bias, etc, since it is the same basic tech. Yes, it is only a 1080p resolution device vs 4k, I will be looking at a much smaller image, etc. but, for $5K, it sure seems like a good, real world option to me.

When Mike Sowa from Laser Pacific was discussing the 4k digital intermediate he timed with Vilmos Zigmond for "Black Dahlia" at the HDExpo on Thursday he talked about their suite. They use a Christie projector on a 33' by 13' screen for color grading with a LUT profile to match the properties of the release print stock specified for the project. Must be nice, but can you imagine the cost. The uncompressed files they scanned off the Super35mm Kodak 5218 took up some 12 TerraBytes. The color grading was done on Lustre (which is big bucks). Obviously, we have left "indie" territory.

The point of all this is that when the final screening solution is digitally based it becomes possible to leapfrog a lot of expensive issues in post so that "indies" can deliver "near studio quality" to the screen. Of course you will still want a talented colorist and a powerful color color grading solution - hey Apple, how about an affordable version of Final Touch by NAB!

Blair S. Paulsen
RedOne #19

Make no mistake... film projectors are destined for the museums. It is just a matter of time. The trick is for the future of this industry to maintain it's soul. The "look" of movies has to feel right. We acknowledge this in our work.

Jim

Old thread, but I had to revisit a comment I made a while back. Just saw Sweeney Todd at Arclight, and basically.....WOW. Charles brought it up a long while back, and I absolutely agree. This was the first theater experience I've ever had where I can say it surpassed my home system. Stunning cinematography and sound design, presented every bit as it was intended. I'm now lucky enough to live in close proximity to an Arclight theater, I just hope the entire rest of the world eventually gets to share a similar experience before the entire industry shifts towards home viewing exclusively.

Considering spectacle movies like Batman Begins, King Kong and Superman cost over $200M to produce I think spending $8.50 is a bargain. Especially when compared to going to the theater or sporting events.

If ticket prices are the problem, maybe they need to make movies that cost less?

Not that it would matter: Blair Witch Project cost $40,000 - tickets were still the same price as any other movie.